Gisela Granena and Mike Long lay out the
purpose and contents of the volume in the
introduction. According to the two authors, age
of onset (AoO) and aptitude are the two
greatest predictors of non-native language
learning. Their interest is in the role of
aptitude in naturalistic learning settings, not
traditional classrooms, and of the effect of
high or low aptitude on ultimate attainment,
not rate of learning. This marks a step away
from previous decades of aptitude research,
which focused on the importance of aptitude for
progressing quickly in non-native language
learning in a traditional classroom. Part I
considers a variety of issues related to age
differences and maturational constraints. Part
II then considers aptitude constructs and
measures, including the LLAMA Language Aptitude
Tests, working memory, phonological short-term
memory, and the High-level Language Aptitude
Battery (Hi-LAB). Part III combines the topics
of the first two sections by reporting on
empirical studies investigating the roles of
aptitude and AoO in advanced L2 proficiency.
Finally, Part IV relates the topics of
maturational constraints and aptitude to
society: the implications of when to introduce
foreign languages in schools and the importance
of aptitude-treatment interactions in real-life
classrooms.

Rather than simply summarizing the existing
literature on maturational constraints in SLA,
Long identifies issues that plague the field
and why they have led to a lack of consensus
amongst researchers regarding the specific
nature and causes of sensitive periods and
maturational constraints. He also identifies
ways in which the research has improved over
the decades, pointing to a promising future.
Long’s hypotheses for maturational constraints
are that native-like attainment is possible,
but not guaranteed, for all domains with an AoO
ranging from 0-6, possible but less likely from
6-early teens, and impossible beyond that. Lack
of consensus amongst researchers comes from
factors including, but not limited to,
overreliance on census data, comparison of
correlation coefficients rather than using
regressions to identify breakpoints in slopes,
and use of untimed tests which allow for access
of explicit knowledge rather than forcing
participants to rely on implicit, native-like
knowledge. The list of ten improvements to the
field leaves one with the positive feeling that
increasing sophistication of research design
(methodology, participant selection,
specificity of hypotheses) will yield
interesting and informative results in the rest
of this volume and in the near future.

Chapter 2: Maturational constraints on lexical
acquisition in a second language (Katherine
Spadaro)

Spadaro reports on an empirical study that
investigated how AoO (age 0-6, 7-12, or 13+)
relates to ultimate attainment in the lexical
domain. Participants spoke English as a second
language and fully participated in life in the
English-speaking community either through work
or school. These participants were compared to
ten native speaker controls. All participants
completed the Kent-Rosanoff word association
task, seven written production tasks (filling
in blanks, discriminating nonce words, and
others), and an oral production task (retelling
a story from a video). The experimental groups,
especially those with older ages of onset, had
difficulty using core vocabulary items in
collocations and seemed to have a “considerably
smaller repertoire of ‘memorized chunks’” (p.
63) available to them. Many of these were
trends rather than significant differences
between groups, but still suggest that findings
for maturational constraints in L2
morphosyntactic learning (e.g., Abrahamsson
& Hyltenstam, 2008) extend to the lexical
domain.

According to the authors, the Bilingual Turn
proposed by Ortega (2010) (which states that
the goal of developing bilinguals is not to be
a native-like monolingual in the L2 but rather
a balanced bilingual) implies that ultimate
attainment should be defined by the effects of
two or more languages coexisting in the mind
(i.e., level and control of bilingualism)
rather than AoO. According to this view, it is
not an individual’s language-learning ability
that decreases with age, but rather an increase
in the interference from L1 (given that L1
proficiency increases with maturational
development). While Bylund et al. (2012) found
that bilinguals’ proficiency in L1 and L2
differed from that of native speakers’ in each
language, the correlations between L1 and L2
proficiency were positive, not negative: higher
proficiency in one language occurred with
higher proficiency with the second; moreover,
both correlated positively with aptitude
scores. Thus, they argue that it is degree of
aptitude, not interlingual interference or
degree of bilingualism, that leads to ultimate
attainment. Moreover, the authors argue that
the lack of specificity on native speaker
controls in studies of ultimate attainment may
mean that controls are somewhat bilingual
themselves, so the contrast is not as great as
some critics say. Finally, since many ultimate
attainment studies use immigrant populations,
it is unclear to what extent the L1 is
maintained and used. Finally, the scarcity of
studies investigating bilingual effects on
ultimate attainment impedes formulation of
specific hypotheses for the various multiple
sensitive periods that researchers currently
propose: the magnitude of any effect may vary
by linguistic domain and may coexist with
maturational constraints.

This chapter reports on results of an
exploratory validation study of the LLAMA, a
relatively new aptitude measure. It uses
picture stimuli and thus is
language-independent, unlike the MLAT. Its
subsections include vocabulary learning, sound
sequence recognition, sound-symbol association,
and grammatical inferencing. Granena’s summary
of previous empirical literature concludes that
LLAMA scores correlate, above all, with
learning outcomes when measured by explicit
tests and/or when combined with explicit
instruction; only the LLAMA D (sound
recognition) correlates with timed assessments.
The validation study considered both internal
consistency (across items) and test-retest
consistency (within individuals after a
two-year gap). Both showed acceptable, but not
superior, reliability. Validity analysis of the
LLAMA showed that the LLAMA D loaded on a
component separate from the other subtests,
which loaded on one component. A primary
component analysis supported the idea that
LLAMA D does not reflect explicit,
metalinguistic ability whereas the other
subtests do. Thus, it is not surprising that
LLAMA scores have generally been found to
correlate with language learning in more
explicit conditions. Separating LLAMA D scores
may be a way of investigating more implicit
language learning ability in the future.

Chapter 5: New conceptualizations of language
aptitude in second language attainment (Judit
Kormos)

This chapter takes on the different cognitive
factors related to L2 development; namely,
intelligence, aptitude, working memory (WM),
and phonological short-term memory (PSTM), and
considers how they might be related or interact
in the language learning process.
Language-learning aptitude, as with general
intelligence, has historically lacked a
theoretical basis and definition because
aptitude tests were created via the
psychometric approach: by including tests that
correlated with achievement, rather than by
picking tests based on a theoretical
explanation of how they would relate to
achievement. WM has been shown to correlate
with aptitude, whereas PSTM has not. There are
theoretical bases for including both aptitude
components proposed by Carroll and Sapon (1992)
and cognitive factors such as WM and PSTM in
various stages of the language learning
process. Kormos concludes by saying there is
likely a role for aptitude in both explicit and
naturalistic language learning situations, and
that there is evidence that being in instructed
language learning situations yields an increase
in some aptitude components (metalinguistic
awareness and phonological sensitivity);
however, the importance of non-cognitive
factors, such as motivation and personality,
should not be forgotten, as likely all interact
to determine ultimate attainment.

This chapter introduces the High-level Language
Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB), a measure of
aptitude for high L2 proficiency, presenting
its constructs, measures, reliability, and
validity. The Hi-LAB aims to predict ultimate
achievement rather than rate of progress in
classroom settings, given that some learners
have been shown to achieve very high
proficiency despite being later learners. “High
proficiency” was defined as Interagency
Language Roundtable (ILR, a scale used by US
government agencies) Level 4 (Advanced
Professional Proficiency). The theoretical
constructs behind the Hi-LAB include working
memory (capacity and executive control),
long-term memory, primability, perceptual
acuity, processing speed, implicit induction
ability, explicit induction ability, pragmatic
sensitivity, and fluency/automaticity in
speech. The version of the Hi-LAB reported on
here includes tasks operationalizing working
memory through implicit induction. Validity
studies compared Hi-LAB performance of highly
successful language learners to that of the
more average learner, all government employees.
The Hi-LAB correctly classified highly
successful learners 70% of the time for
listening, 60% for reading, and 67% for
either-skill attainment. Hi-LAB results are
also used to create an aptitude profile for
each test taker, evaluating that person’s
likely language learning outcome and in what
environment they likely will achieve most
(e.g., immersion or classroom). The development
of aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) studies
based on these profiles is still in
development.

Chapter 7: Reexamining the robustness of
aptitude in second language acquisition (Gisela
Granena)

This chapter extends previous research on
aptitude and SLA, which in the past has been
restricted to SLA in instructed conditions, by
investigating aptitude in naturalistic learning
contexts. Tests were grammaticality judgment
tests (GJTs; aural and written, with aural
being timed and written untimed) with two types
of items (simple or complex syntax) and the
LLAMA as a measure of aptitude. Participants
were L1 English-L2 Spanish residents of
Barcelona or controls who were Spanish/Catalan
bilinguals. Results showed that the difference
in accuracy between the experimental and
control groups was greater on the aural GJT
than the written, although control outperformed
experimental in both cases. For the
experimental group, aptitude played a role in
accuracy for written items, but not auditory.
Reaction time (RT) analyses showed that
controls were faster than the experimental
group in both GJTs. However, within the control
group, RT was slower in the auditory GJT than
in the written, whereas within the experimental
group, RT was slower in the written than the
auditory. Aptitude did not moderate RT outcomes
nor did it interact with sentence complexity
for accuracy. Granena concludes that whether
tests are timed or untimed is crucial for SLA:
high-aptitude L2 speakers had significantly
higher accuracy when they were given time to
think, with RT analyses corroborating this
explanation by showing that L2 learners did
take more time when possible.

The authors present an empirical study whose
results suggest that phonological short-term
memory (PSTM) limits both the initial rate of
learning a second language for adult learners
as well as their ultimate attainment. They
argue that for aural input to be remembered as
a chunk, it must first be held in PSTM.
Participants were Polish immigrants to the UK
who arrived after the age of 18 and had been in
residence at least 10 years, and a native
speaker (NS) control group. They completed
texts describing a video they had just seen
(nativelike selection of lexical entries) and a
nonword repetition task (PSTM), as well as a
background questionnaire that asked after their
frequency of use of L1 and L2 and attitudes
toward interacting with English speakers.
Hierarchical regressions showed that level of
interaction with English speakers, PSTM, and
attitude toward interacting with English
speakers were all significant predictors of
nativelike selection of lexicon. Finally,
comparing the scores of the four immigrants who
scored within the native-speaker range showed
that greater ability in one domain (e.g., level
of interaction with NS) can offset weaker
ability in another area (e.g., PSTM).
Therefore, unlike in studies of child language
acquisition, the nature of the environment, as
well as individual differences, is crucial for
adult learners.

This empirical study compares the relationship
between high L2 proficiency and aptitude (as
measured by the LLAMA) and that of high L2
proficiency and personality. High L2
proficiency was measured by tests of
collocations and grammaticality judgment.
Participants were 13 L1 Swedish/L2 French
speakers who began learning French late (after
age 12) and had spent at least five years in
France. L2 collocation score correlated with
LLAMA-D score, cultural empathy score, and
open-mindedness score. LLAMA-D also correlated
with the same two personality measures. LLAMA-D
is related to phonetic memory, so it makes
sense that that aptitude subcomponent would be
related to acquisition of L2 collocations. It
is less clear what the correlations between
LLAMA-D and personality subcomponents mean, but
the authors suggest a root construct of
openness to new sounds and experiences. As in
the previous chapter, the conclusion is that
both aptitude and additional factors (here,
psychosocial ones) need to be considered to
predict adult learning, especially at high
proficiency.

Chapter 10: Some implications of research
findings on sensitive periods in language
learning for educational policy and practice
(Mike Long)

Long begins this chapter by acknowledging that
the policy implications for sensitive periods
in language learning are highly dependent on
the context and the individuals. Many countries
have begun to introduce foreign languages at
earlier and earlier ages in schools, but that
type of exposure is unlikely to be of
sufficient quantity to make the most of younger
childrens’ advantage in implicit learning.
Thus, it might be better in some cases to
either wait until the children are slightly
older and better able to take advantage of
focus-on-form instruction or to develop more
age-appropriate approaches to early childhood
education in a second language. This is where
context comes in: in the case of immigrants,
one is not going to wait to begin their ESL
education; rather, ESL classes for young
children should be focused on providing rich
input with minimal instruction. In contrast, in
cases of foreign language instruction, there
may be no harm in waiting to begin instruction.
Long also highlights the need for applied
research in these areas rather than relying on
basic research investigating the effects of AoO
at a later age.

This chapter reviews existing literature on
ATIs to identify trends in the findings and to
critique the current methodology, with an aim
to improving research design in future studies.
Studies have generally used one of two designs:
in the first, learners’ cognitive aptitude is
measured and the researcher deliberately
assigns each participant to a treatment that
either matches or mismatches their aptitude, to
observe the resultant learning outcome. The
second option for a research design is
assigning participants to treatments
arbitrarily and then analyzing the role of
aptitude in the learning outcomes of each
treatment in a post hoc manner. Although many
studies have not had ATI as their primary goal,
they do generally report differential outcomes
within treatments due to aptitude. However, the
operationalizations of both aptitude and type
of treatment vary so widely that it is
difficult to consolidate findings, much less
perform a meta-analysis. The authors also
discuss different patterns of interactions
found: studies can find that treatments affect
both high and low aptitude learners
differentially (a rare finding), that aptitude
has a role in one treatment but not another (in
which case the second is preferable for being
fair to all learners), or that one treatment’s
superiority is carried by the high aptitude
learners. Thus, implications for pedagogy need
to be cautious based on the type of interaction
found.

EVALUATION

This volume brings together a wealth of
information on its topics of focus: sensitive
periods, language aptitude, and ultimate
attainment in the L2. Much of the research
reported is cutting-edge; for example, by
investigating acquisition on collocations and
lexical development (Chapters 2, 7, 8, and 9)
and testing the reliability of recently
developed aptitude measures (the LLAMA and the
Hi-LAB, Chapters 4 and 6, respectively). Many
chapters also bring new perspectives to very
current debates in applied linguistics, some
long-standing (e.g., Chapter 1, on the nature
of maturational constraints) and some newer
(e.g., Chapter 3, on the “bilingual turn” in
SLA and its implications -- or lack thereof --
for proposed sensitive periods). Finally, the
implications for real-world educational
practices are clearly discussed in both
empirical and theoretical chapters (e.g.,
implications of the Hi-LAB in government
language training in Chapter 4, issues of
educational policy in Chapter 10, and the
future of ATIs in Chapter 11). Therefore, this
volume will be of value not only to applied
linguists who already work on these topics, but
also those looking to make a future
contribution to the field (perhaps by using a
more recent aptitude test, targeting an
understudied linguistic domain, or
investigating deliberate rather than post hoc
ATIs) and for educational practitioners and
policy makers.

This volume may be of particular use for
aptitude researchers, as the three chapters in
Section II are very explicit in the theoretical
constructs behind their aptitude tests and how
they are operationalized in the tests. In the
past, researchers have theorized about
constructs (e.g., Skehan, 2002) or proposed
tests without a clear theoretical background
(e.g., the MLAT, Carroll & Sapon, 2002),
but rarely are the two as well integrated as
they are in these chapters.

Nevertheless, some of the chapters are narrow
in their view of what fits the authors’
definitions, especially in terms of
nativelikeness in ultimate attainment. Chapter
1 sets the trend in this regard by rejecting
evidence of NNS nativelikeness in untimed L2
tests, stating that such tests allow for
explicit reflection rather than requiring use
of implicit knowledge. It is not clear why
explicit knowledge, especially if automatized
and thus nearly identical to implicit knowledge
in practice (i.e., Segalowitz & Segalowitz,
1993) is not acceptably like a native speaker.
Empirical studies in this volume, as in this
subfield in general, focus on the tests that
show non-nativelikeness in near-native speakers
to the detriment of the tests that show
nativelikeness. From a scientific perspective,
both findings are informative.

Finally, in embracing current trends in SLA to
focus on lexical acquisition and collocations,
previously understudied domains, the current
volume has little to say about aptitude and
ultimate attainment in morphosyntactic or
phonological development. Pragmatics is
mentioned in the chapter on the Hi-LAB, but
pragmatic knowledge is not assessed in any
chapter of the volume.
Overall, this volume makes a clear contribution
to the field and will be very useful to
practitioners, regardless of their level of
experience in the field. The breadth and depth
of its contents is impressive for an edited
volume.

Jessica G. Cox is a PhD Candidate in Spanish
Applied Linguistics at Georgetown University.
Her dissertation, partly funded by a Language
Learning dissertation grant, investigates the
effects of two internal variables, bilingualism
and cognitive aging, and one external variable,
instructional conditions, in the initial
development of non-primary morphosyntax. She
also considers the roles of IDs (cognitive
control, aptitude, and implicit sequence
learning ability) in L2 learning. Cox currently
teaches Spanish language and linguistics at
Georgetown University and has studied in
Mexico, Costa Rica, China, and Brazil.